The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image likely sourced from a website, small size no meta data and promotional content. Uploader unlikely to hold copyright. Polly (Parrot) 00:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Keep. This Wikipedia respects US copyright law, and this image is not copyrighted in the US. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reproduction sourced from outside US Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep US law applies on en.Wiki, and Corel v. Bridgeman is good and clear law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some experts feel Bridgeman vs Corel does not apply to some works from outside the US, will consider detagging this.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art_photographs Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. {{PD-art}} is still policy, despite the current kerfuffle on Commons about the NPG legal threats. Nothing has changed. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I question whether anyone who feels Bridgeman v. Corel doesn't apply to foreign works can be described as an expert. The case itself is about foreign works, and it's quite explicit in saying that British photographs of paintings are not copyright in the US, no matter what the law in the UK says.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per {[pd-1923-abroad]}!...Modernist (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This tag should be used from now on...Modernist (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: withdrawn Skier Dude (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No source for specfic image - Reproduction of UK coin Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Withdrawn - mistag/already 'fair-use' Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all the images are public domain, (see file talk page). It is the uploaders responsibility to correct this or the image should be deleted. Polly (Parrot) 01:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the uploader removed the link to this discussion on the 12th, which was not caught until today. However, I would have to agree that the image should be deleted as it is nonfree. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that the bot is misidentifying the image in this case, due to the uploader's confusion with our policies. The "primary" tag is PD-self, and then the author has copyright tags listed for each image in the montage, some of which are nonfree as stated above. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The whole collage is unfree as it includes unfree images. Furthermore the uploader seems to refuse this as he replaced one free image again with a nonfree image, a screenshot from a Michael Jackson video. So delete, the image is claimed as free but it is unfre, a nonfree collage for vanity on an article cant be accepted as it is not covered by fair use policy. --Martin H. (talk)
• delete this one, even if labeled non free, it is easily replaceable by other images or collages of images, so it is an invalid fair use rationale. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: withdrawn Skier Dude (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No specfic source - UK Coin reproduction Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Withdrawn - mistag/ already 'fair-use' Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep Skier Dude (talk) 02:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Reproduction of non US work - Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. {{PD-art}} is still policy, despite the current kerfuffle on Commons about the NPG legal threats. Nothing has changed. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep US law applies on en.Wiki, and Corel v. Bridgeman is good and clear law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The copyright is valid for use on the en Wikipedia. The source is clear enough. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete (w/personal agreement that condition #3 is disqualifying) Skier Dude (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image is licensed with permission, no specific release is given for the use of derivatives works. Polly (Parrot) 01:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"2. When you copy any content from this site, you must attribute what you copy to HMdb.org. If you post the content on the Internet, you must provide a link to this site in your attribution. In addition, any photographs and artwork used must also credit the photographer's or artist's name."

I assume photographs and artwork are derived works. To compromise, I could copy all copyright conditions onto the summary and make them clear to anyone who wishes to use the image. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 18:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term "use" implies derivatives. There are some odd terms on the website, but I think this is free enough to meet our requirements. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as the third condition of reuse restricts commercial use. Also clearly incorrect tag. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Keep, first published in the USA in 1922; indisputably PD there. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reproduction of work from outside the US - No specfic source listed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep US law applies on en.Wiki, and Corel v. Bridgeman is good and clear law. [1] is one of many sites that has copies of these images; it was published in Arthur Conan Doyle’s The Coming of the Fairies, published in 1922 by George H. Doran Co., New York, according to that site.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgmen v Corel does not according to some experts/commons advice apply to the UK, (sand thus by extension) to UK works. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. {{PD-art}} is still policy, despite the current kerfuffle on Commons about the NPG legal threats. Nothing has changed. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And even if {{PD-art}} wasn't policy, it was published in the US in 1922, which means, Corel or no Corel, it's unquestionably PD-US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Speedy delete per CSD:F8. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of 3d artwork outside of US Sfan00 IMG (talk) 02:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment; what does outside of US have to do with it? It's really a moot point, since File:Lupa romana.jpeg is a duplicate on Commons, but it's concerning that the pictures are both labeled self-taken but have different authors listed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. no FOP in Italy. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sculpture is a replica of the Capitoline Wolf, which famously either several hundred, or over 2,000, years old, depending on which art historian you believe. No artist's copyright can apply. The photo was taken by the uploader (& it shows). What's the issue here? Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above...Modernist (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I cannot say anything on the copyright of the statue itself, but the photo was taken by myself. It is a crop from the photo I uploaded on http://lh3.ggpht.com/_X4kZ1BV9lWA/Rn48ZKm8KFI/AAAAAAAAD50/vNi_48ugnd0/condens%2020030418-27%20Napels%20y%2885%29.jpg --Donar Reiskoffer (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the en upload predates the commons, so the commons version may be a copyright violation, unless Donar Reiskoffer also claims to be Giorces, who does not use English (Italian?).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General Muhammad Ataul Gani Osmani, popularly referred to as Banga Bir General M.A.G. Osmani (September 1, 1918 – February 16, 1984) . but uploader claim that it is his work may be copyvio - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 09:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Kept. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digital reproduction of non-US work Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very straightforward case of {{PD-Canada}}. Not sure what the problem is here. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does Bridgmen v Corel apply in Canada? (prompted because of matters on Commons re reproductions of PD works sourced from outside the US) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. {{PD-art}} is still policy, despite the current kerfuffle on Commons about the NPG legal threats. Nothing has changed. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this PD in the USA? It doesn't appear so... Stifle (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of academic now. There is a fair use rationale, so it can't be deleted here. That said, it was in the public domain in Canada in 1996. All {{PD-Canada}} requires is that the image was created before 1949 (which is obviously the case because the subject died in 1942). Am I missing something here? IronGargoyle (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find this image on the web, but suspect this is a copyright violation based on other uploads by this user. Uploader has a bad habit of lying that they created the image themselves. —SpaceFlight89 (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like screenshot of some video game. —SpaceFlight89 (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader/Authoer credit mismatch Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptical about this being self drawn Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Author/Uploader mismatch Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a GFDL on the source listed Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Billinghurst (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hubble image - No indication in image description of wording required for PD status Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is sourced directly to NASA without mention of outside contractors or agencies. I don't see the problem here. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put the picture on Wikipedia. Just click on the picture link above and read the full non-copyright evidence I provided - there is an extract (in italics) from the source website, I say it's from Hubble (which is PD), I give a website URL which is NASA, and there is a big box at the bottom that confirms all this!! - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The author claims to have created this image themselves, but the image uses both FIFA and Entertainment Arts' logos and at best is a clearly derivative work with no image license. NW (Talk) 19:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep} PD-old is clearly appropriate here. Skier Dude (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sourc site says - © 2009 Autry National Center Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They can claim copyright all they want. The photograph is of a person who died in 1873, so it's no longer protected by copyright in the United States (where it was taken and published). Gentgeen (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: kept w/license as updated. Skier Dude (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Claimed as self - unlikely Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the image description closely and you will see a link to the public domain source of this image. poolisfun (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Where does the original gif say it was obtained from?Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clear example of {{PD-pre1978}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Poolisfun: Okay, so can you guys remove that possibly unfree notice now (I'm not sure how to do it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poolisfun (talk • contribs) 21:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concert/gig image- PD self claim but skeptical Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Clearly copywritten.--WillC 10:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean copywritten? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 01:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep

Self claim- Skeptical given location featured Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My friend has also put it on Facebook - [2]. We were really there and I did really take it. DJ 20:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK , Feel free to de-tag - Please also file a note with the permission queue at OTRS (see WP:COPYREQ) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PD Self claim - but skeptical Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likely sourced from a website. Polly (Parrot) 21:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-I found that [3] copyvio.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 10:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the pictures are not the same, they both appear to be cropped from the same source image, the Wikipedia version has image content to the right of the indiafolder one which is at http://asset2.learnhub.com/lesson/pages/12737/photos/26476-large.jpg. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likely sourced from a website. Uploader unlikely to hold copyright. Polly (Parrot) 21:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Kept per {{PD-art-US}}. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digital reporduction of work sourced from outside US Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. {{PD-art}} is still policy, despite the current kerfuffle on Commons about the NPG legal threats. Nothing has changed. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep US law applies on en.Wiki, and Corel v. Bridgeman is good and clear law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for reason specified by Prosfilaes. Additionally, although the image is not technically in the public domain in Canada, it is a work of national importance, held by the National Gallery of Canada. Its use by Wikipedia also qualifies under fair dealing legislation in Canada, which permits use for "research, private study, criticism, review or news reporting." Like the fair use doctrine of United States, Canada's fair dealing is not seen as an infringement of copyright. Sunray (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image obviously sourced from a website. Polly (Parrot) 22:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Kept, obviously PD. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PD but claimed with permission? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly in the public domain due to age. The permission was not relevant or needed. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

isn't that disney property? ViperSnake151  Talk  23:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Kept. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trademark Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trademark is not an issue here. The logo is too simple for copyright. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is complex enough to have a copyright, however I have added a FUR, as it identifies the logo for the UNIVAC company on the article about UNIVAC. No need to delete any more. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree with your assessment that this is complex enough for copyright. But, even so, looking at the history of the company name and logo, this was published prior to 1978 without a copyright notice, per {{PD-pre1978}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1935 Image of UK event is not nessacrily PD Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Withdrawn. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Musuem exhibt.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on the talk page of the image. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.